TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE WAR AGAINST SOCIALISM.
WE note with no small satisfaction that a very con- siderable number of Unionists seem willing to adopt the suggestion first made in the Times, and endorsed by us, that in order to combine forces in the war against Socialism, the two sections, or perhaps we should say the three sections, of the Unionist Party—the Tariff Reformers, the Balfourites, and the Free-trade Unionists—should sink their differences by agreeing upon the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider fully and impartially our whole fiscal system. Such an inquiry would involve, on the one hand, the patient and detailed hearing of those who believe that Free-trade is injurious to this country both politically and economically, and should make way for a system of Preference and Protection ; and, on the other, of those who, like ourselves, believe that not only is the economic welfare of the country bound up with the maintenance of Free-trade, but also that our Empire can only stand strong and secure upon a Free-trade basis. All sections would have to make some sacrifices in agree- ing to the appointment of such a Royal Commission, but they are sacrifices which could be made without loss of honour, and are certainly worth making in order to pro- duce effective action designed to preserve the fabric of the State from the assaults of the Socialists. Again, those who believe, as we certainly do, not only in the strength of their cause, but in its ability to win its way by argument and by the appeal to facts, cannot but welcome full and frank discussion.
The letters which we publish in another column, and further indications of a private character, go to show that the proposal for a Royal Commission is affecting the rank- and-file of the party. A great responsibility will fall upon the leaders of all sections if they refuse to recognise this fact and do not give it their most earnest consideration. It is hardly necessary to point out that the duty of taking action rests primarily with Mr. Balfour, for he has himself always insisted on the imperative need of reuniting the party. Let us trust that he will now know how to take occasion by the hand. The speech which he is to deliver to the Conservative Conference at Birmingham early in November should afford him all the opportunity he can require. We do not, of course, suggest that he should at once declare the scheme for a Royal Commission to be the official policy. It is probably too early for such an announcement. If, however, he should find it possible to ventilate the matter and show that it would have his approval, should it be the general desire of the party, a very great advance would have been made in the direction of reunion; While dealing with the question of Socialism we desire to take the opportunity to point out how useless and unreal is a great deal of the anti-Socialist talk that is going on both among official Liberals and official Conservatives on the platform and in the Press. To speak quite frankly, we hold that there is very little assistance in eloquent abstract denunciations of Socialism such as are to be found in Mr. Asquith's speech of last Saturday, or to be discovered any day in the pages of newspapers like the Morning Post. And for this reason. These abstract denunciations are unfortunately too often joined with practical support of Socialistic measures. We would far rather see Mr. Asquith applauding Socialism in general and opposing non-contributory old-age pensions in particular than, as is unfortunately the case, doing the, reverse. The same may be said of the Morning Post, which, as we understand it, is quite prepared to adopt a large section of the practical part of the Socialist programme as long as it is called. " social reform." What we desire to see is a real and definite opposition to Socialistic measures. If we can obtain that, we do not in the least care by what name our co-workers in opposition describe themselves. Willingness to oppose Socialism in the concrete,—that is the test, and the only test which is worth having. At the present moment this test can be made still more specific by a reference to the vital question which is now before the country,—the question of old-age pensions. It is against this specific proposal that all who are bola-fide anti-Socialists should now concentrate their efforts. Let them abandon all notion of saying to the working classes : " If you will come over to us we can supply you with just as good an article under a much prettier name." Instead, the nation should be told that the alleged benefit offered to them is a deadly poison, and that if they accept it they will not only involve the State in unnecessary and burdensome expenditure, and deeply injure the fountain of industry at its source, but will also sap the strength and vigour of the nation.
And here let us say once again that our opposition to Socialism is not based either upon any pedantic or theoretic Individualism, or upon any fears as to the " sacred " rights of property. We oppose Socialism, not because we are frightened by any such bugbears, but because we are convinced that if Socialism is adopted a deep and lasting injury will be done to the nation, and especially to the working classes, who would be most exposed to its demoralising effects. We recognise as strongly as any of our Socialistic opponents the evils of poverty, and desire as passionately as they can to get rid of those evils, and to endow the working classes with a'larger share of the profits of industry. We want to see, not the rich richer and the poor poorer, but a better division of the world's wealth. But we hold—nay, we are certain—that this improved state of things can never come about under a system of State Socialism. On the contrary, State Socialism will not only immensely reduce the wealth of the world, and so provide less to go round, but, what is far more important, will render the individual citizen less capable, less independent, less self-respecting, and there- fore morally an inferior man. But though no Socialist can desire more ardently than we do to ameliorate the moral and economic position of the labourer, we will never willingly consent to the quackery which professes to cure a disease while, in reality, introducing one more malignant and more deadly. Let those who honestly desire the welfare of the working man and a better distribution of the ' world's good things remember that the world has never yet applied the true principles of free exchange in their entirety to our social and economic life. There has always existed in every. European polity a very large proportion of State Socialism and State interference with the mechanism of industry. Especially here in England we have to deal with a population demoralised by that system of State Socialism known as the old Poor Law. The old Poor Law left us as an inheritance a large section of the popu- lation thriftless and inefficient, and in practice, if not in theory, regulating their existence, not on the principles of Individualism, but of Socialism. Yet with many reactions and many drawbacks, we have hitherto been freeing ourselvd, though very slowly it is true, from the Socialism of past ages, and adopting more of the true principles of free exchange, not merely in commerce, but in all the relations of life,—for in truth, as we have said on a previous occasion, Socialism is the mark of a primi- tive society, and a more individualistic organisation the mark of social progress and development.
No man, then, has a right to declare that Individualism, or perhaps it would be better to say a non-Socialistic system, has been tried and found wanting. The true anti-Socialist policy has never yet been efficiently applied in practice. All that has been done is to make a certain small advance in the struggle towards the light. Let us say once more that our specific objects in opposing Socialism are :—(1) To prevent the demoralisation of the people and the sapping of the strength of the nation caused by teaching men to rely upon the State rather than upon their own energies. (2) To oppose the destruction of that most beneficent of social and political institutions, the family, an institution that we, at any rate, are not ashamed to describe as sacred.
We have no fear of the world at large adopting Socialism, though our anxiety is great lest Britain should lose her place in the world, and lose it for ever, by the adoption of Socialism° Depend upon it, the State will not long absorb all the sources of production, or be able to maintain for long a system under which the population are in the position of State serfs. Private property, even if overwhelmed for the moment, will reappear, though, it may well be, not accompanied by those popular rights and democratic institutions which are enjoyed along with it at the present time. Dr. Hodgkin, the eloquent author of "Italy and her Invaders," in describing how in reality it was State Socialism, and not the military prowess of the barbarians, which destroyed the Roman Empire, has pointed out that the British people may very soon be face to face with the situation which confronted the people of Rome :- " Will the great democracies of the twentieth century resist the temptation to use political power as a means of material self- enrichment? With a higher ideal of public duty than has been shown by some of the governing classes which preceded them, will they refrain from jobbing the commonwealth ? Warned by the experience of Rome, will they shrink from reproducing, directly or indirectly, the political heresy of Caius Gracchus, that he who votes in the Forum must be fed by the State ? If they do, perhaps the world may see democracies as long-lived as the dynasties of Egypt or of China. If they do not, assuredly now as in the days of our Saxon forefathers it will be found that he who is a giver of bread is also lord." [Dr. Hodgkin might have added : "And he that receiveth the bread is a loafer."] "The old weary round will recommence, democracy leading to anarchy, and anarchy to despotism, and the national workshops of some future Gracehus will build the palaces in which British or American despots, as incapable of rule as Arcadius or Honoring, will guide mighty empires to ruin amidst the acclama- tions of flatterers as eloquent and as hollow as the courtly Claudian."
This passage is as sound in thought as it is eloquent in expression. We may be perfectly sure that there will be no escape from the " old weary round " under which the social Revolution and the Terror give way to a Napoleon, unless we can make the democracy here realise that it is not to its true interests to follow the selfish example of other classes that have been endowed with political power, and, as Dr. Hodgkin says, to " job the commonwealth" under the name of State Socialism or any other misleading alias. Our belief is that if the men of light and leading of all parties will deal honestly and openly with the British democracy, it may be made to realise the truth and to pause even at the edge of the precipice. But there must be plain speaking and plain dealing. Any attempt to prevent-the catastrophe by descending half-way down the precipice is doomed to failure. If men like Mr. Asquith are going to consent to old-age pension schemes which in their hearts they must surely know will be injurious to the best interests of the commonwealth, it will be impos- sible to make the democracy understand the better way. Let us end by one specific suggestion. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer has money to spare for the benefit of the working classes, as we trust he may have, let him spend it in the way which will benefit them most, and that is by the reduction of taxation, not by any form of direct doles. We are 'confident that at this moment he who desires to help the working classes materially can far better attain that object by a reduction of the taxes which fall most heavily on the working classes—as, for example, those on sugar, tea, and tobacco—than by any other method. At the very best, direct gifts to a class are apt to be illusory and dis- appointing, and will often reach the wrong hands. It can never fail to be beneficial to relieve the burden of taxation on the poor.
Previous page
